5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Novotroitsk, Orenburg Region.
6.  On 22 April 2004, at 9.05 p.m., the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in drug dealing and taken to a police station for questioning. According to the applicant, the police officers handcuffed him and beat him. Then they hung him up by the handcuffs with his legs not touching the floor. In the morning he was left in a tiny cell where he could not even lie down and had to stand.
7.  On 23 April 2004, at 8.55 p.m., the applicant was taken to a temporary detention centre. During the questioning which took place on the same date, he complained that he had been beaten by police officers at the police station.
8.  On 24 April 2004, at 12.15 p.m., the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert. The applicant reported that he had been beaten by the police officers on 22 April 2004. They had punched him and hit him with a chair on the head and other parts of his body. He further complained that he was experiencing pain in the lumbar area, in the neck, the buttocks and the right calf. The expert noted abrasions on the applicant's upper lip and wrists, a bruise on the upper left eyelid, and multiple bruises on the left temple. The applicant was also suffering from nausea and dizziness. According to the doctor, the injuries could have resulted from the impact of blunt objects and could have occurred up to one day before the medical examination. They did not cause any impairment to the applicant's general health.
9.  On 25 April 2004 a medical emergency team was summoned to see the applicant, who was suffering from diabetes and neurasthenia.
10.  On 26 April 2004 the applicant's counsel complained to the prosecutor's office about the applicant's ill-treatment in police custody.
11.  On 29 April 2004 the senior investigator of the Leninskiy District Prosecutor's Office of Orsk dismissed the complaint. The investigator noted that the applicant had sustained the injuries on the afternoon of 23 April 2004, whereas he alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment on 22 April 2004.
12.  The investigator based his findings on the forensic medical report of 24 April 2004, and the testimony provided by three police officers, who denied the applicant's allegations and claimed that he had actively resisted arrest and even managed to break his handcuffs.
13.  On 18 May 2004 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Leninskiy District of Orsk quashed the investigator's decision of 29 April 2004. The prosecutor stated that the investigator's findings were inconclusive and that the inquiry had been incomplete.
14.  On 28 May 2004 the investigator dismissed the applicant's complaint. The investigator noted that the applicant had actively resisted arrest and questioning and that the police officers had had to use physical force to restrain him. The investigator further noted that, according to the statement submitted by the temporary detention centre where the applicant had been taken on 23 April 2004, he did not have any injuries upon arrival. As to the injuries documented on 24 April 2004, the investigator decided that the applicant must have sustained them no earlier than 12 noon on 23 April 2004, that is, after his arrest and search, which he had actively resisted.
15.  On 7 June 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk quashed the decision of 28 May 2004. The court noted that the investigator's findings were inconclusive and contradictory. In particular, the court observed as follows:
“According to the materials in the case file concerning the refusal to open a criminal investigation, [the applicant] was not questioned with regard to the injuries he had sustained. The decision not to open a criminal investigation was based on the statements made by M., T., and K., the police officers [accused by the applicant of ill-treatment], a report provided by [the temporary detention centre], and the forensic medical report [of 24 April 2004]. [The investigator's] findings [of 28 May 2994] are manifestly contradictory and inconclusive. On the one hand, the investigator noted that [the applicant's] injuries had resulted from his active resistance to the police officers in the course of his arrest on 22 April 2004. On the other hand, the investigator referred to the forensic medical report, arguing that [the applicant] had sustained the injuries no earlier than 12 noon on 23 April 2004. [Thus, the investigator] failed to elucidate the circumstances under which [the applicant] had sustained the injuries, whether it had happened on 22 April 2004 or no earlier than 12 noon on 23 April 2004, and how those injuries had originated if no one had beaten [the applicant]. [The investigator] only established that the applicant did sustain the injuries, but failed to determine the circumstances of their origin.
Furthermore, M. had stated that [the applicant] had broken his metal handcuffs... However, [the investigator] did not examine the handcuffs. Nor did he verify [M.'s statement].
On the day of the court hearing concerning [the applicant's] remand in custody, [he] submitted that the police officers had torn his shirt. His statement was recorded in the minutes of the hearing... [The applicant] explained that the police officers had torn his shirt when they beat him. [The applicant's allegations] were not verified.
According to the information provided by [the remand prison], [the applicant] is receiving medical treatment; certain tests have been carried out, but his condition is not improving. [The investigator] did not verify whether there was a link between [the applicant's] condition and the injuries he had sustained.
The court subscribes to the opinion of the applicant's representative that the inquiry conducted was incomplete in view of [the investigator's] failure to determine the degree of severity of the [applicant's] injuries.
Having regard to the above, the court considers that an additional and comprehensive inquiry is required in order to reconcile all the discrepancies.”
16.  On 13 July 2004 the Orenburg Regional Court found that the District Court had failed to examine properly all the material in its possession and had based its decision mainly on the applicant's testimony. The Regional Court quashed the decision of 7 June 2004 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
17.  On 13 August 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk upheld the investigator's decision of 28 May 2004. The court found the police officers' actions to have been lawful and dismissed the applicant's request for them to be subjected to a polygraph test. In particular, the court observed as follows:
“According to the forensic medical report, [the applicant] had injuries only on his face. No injuries were noted in the lumbar area or on the neck or buttocks. According to the information submitted by the [temporary detention centre], [the applicant] complained about heart pains and diabetes; he was examined and no injuries were noted. The court established that [the applicant] had refused to provide any explanation to the investigator in respect of [his allegations of ill-treatment]. As the police officers who had arrested the applicants submitted, [he] had not been beaten...
The material submitted contains information about the place and time of the applicant's arrest. The court discerns no contradiction between this information and the circumstances of the [applicant's] arrest.
[The investigator] indicated in his decision that a criminal investigation should not be opened ... that [the applicant] had resisted arrest and had been handcuffed for that reason. At [the police station] he had resisted again and broken his handcuffs. The investigator did not discern any evidence showing that the police officers' actions vis-à-vis [the applicant] had been unlawful.”
18.  On 16 September 2004 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 July 2004 on appeal.